Greater Dayton Regional Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union AFL CIO Local 1385
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Froelich
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal of arbitration award confirmation
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Trial court affirmed arbitration award in favor of the union, finding that the transit authority violated the collective bargaining agreement by subcontracting driving duties normally performed by union bus operators for disability transportation services.
Excerpt
The trial court did not err in confirming and refusing to vacate an arbitration award in favor of union and against transit authority with regard to transit authority's practice of contracting outside entities to provide a portion of transportation services mandated for individuals with disabilities. The arbitrator did not exceed his authority by interpreting the applicable collective bargaining agreement as prohibiting transit authority from subcontracting driving duties normally performed by union bus operators. Judgment affirmed.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
More Rulings in This Case
Other orders and opinions in Greater Dayton Regional Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union AFL CIO Local 1385 from the same court.
Similar Rulings
The trial court erred by entering summary judgment under Civ.R. 56 on appellant's claim of sex discrimination because the evidence did not eliminate any genuine issue of material fact regarding the comparability of three male co-workers who were allegedly treated more favorably by appellee, or regarding the validity of appellee's purportedly nondiscriminatory reasons for its comparatively less favorable treatment of appellant. Regarding appellant's claim of disability discrimination, however, the trial court did not err by entering judgment under Civ.R. 56. Appellant, who alleges that appellee terminated her employment because she was disabled, failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to her alleged inability to perform the essential functions of her position at the time of her termination. In addition, the trial court did not err by entering summary judgment on appellant's claim for retaliation, because appellant failed to present evidence sufficient to create any genuine issue of material fact with respect to the alleged causal connection between her engaging in protected activity and appellee's termination of her employment. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.